*Pursuant to 5

TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 

2

 Villa v. Sullivan, 895 F.2d 1019, 1021 (5th Cir. 1990).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 98-50080

Summary Calendar

RICHARD RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC SA-96-CV-1190

March 18, 1999

Before WISDOM, JONES, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The appellant, Richard Rodriguez, filed an application for Disability Income Benefits and

Supplemental Security Income after falling on a patch of ice while working as a bus driver. The

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who heard the case denied Rodriguez’s application. Rodriguez

appealed, and the Appeals Council denied review. Rodriguez then took his case to federal court,

where a Magistrate Judge recommended the appeal be dismissed. The district judge followed that

recommendation. Rodriguez now brings this appeal. We affirm.

In reviewing a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, this Court determines

only whether there is substantial evidence to support the decision, and whether the proper legal

standards were used in evaluating the evidence.2
 

3

 Supp. R. 196-198.

 

4

 Paul v. Shalala, 29 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 1994).

 

5

 36 F.3d 482, 484 (5th Cir. 1994).

 

6 Leggett v. Chater, 67 F.3d 558, 564 (5th Cir. 1995).

 

7

 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520 (f), 416.920 (f).

Rodriguez contends on appealthat there was not substantial evidence to support the decision.

Rodriguez did not raise thisissue before the Appeals Council.3 As Rodriguez failed to raise this issue

before the Appeals Council, he hasfailed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and this Court does

not have jurisdiction to consider this issue.4

Rodriguez next contendsthat the ALJ erred byrelying on the testimony of a vocational expert

as to the level of exertion generally found in Rodriguez’s past jobs: van driver and security guard.

In making this contention Rodriguez relies upon this Court’s decision in Latham v. Shalala, holding

that, in determining if a claimant can perform his past relevant work, the Commissioner “may not rely

on generic classifications of previous jobs.”5

In this case, the ALJ did not rely on generic classifications of previous jobs. Rather, the ALJ

relied upon “the description of the claimant’s past work as such work is generally performed in the

national economy.”6 Rodriguez contends that these two categories are identical, and if the

Commissioner may not rely on one, he may not rely on the other. This is not so. The ALJ may not

rely on generic classifications such as “delivery job.” The reason for this is that some delivery jobs

require more exertion than others. The ALJ may, however, rely on a description of the job as it

generally performed in the national economy. This sharpens the focus of the ALJ’s inquiry

sufficiently to be permissible. This is what the ALJ did in this case, and thus, there is no error.

Finally, Rodriguez contends that the ALJ failed to consider his age, illiteracy, or mental

impairments. It is true that the ALJ did not consider these factors, nor should she have. The ALJ

should only apply these factorsifthe claimant isfound to be incapable of performing his past relevant

work.7 As the ALJ found that Rodriguez could perform his past relevant work, there was no need

to apply these factors.
On the basis of the foregoing, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.